Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42825187›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on medical education2026

Open Science in Undergraduate Medical Education: An International Framework for Transparency, Responsibility, and Professional Identity Formation.

Haang Jeung-Maarse, Rosa L Ecos, Luisa F Jimenez-Soto, Philipp Linde, Mara Müssigmann, Sandra Schuh, Sarah Wahlster, Changryul Claud Yi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives on medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Haang Jeung-MaarseDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Protestant Hospital Bethel Foundation, Medical Faculty OWL, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5565-6558
Rosa L EcosNational Institute of Neurological Sciences, Lima, Peru.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9637-600X
Luisa F Jimenez-SotoWalther-Straub Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Medical Faculty, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8551-5019
Philipp LindeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cyberknife and Radiation Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2813-1331
Mara MüssigmannInstitute of Medical Education, LMU University Hospital, LMU Medizin, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU Munich), and Module Coordinator for the Scientific Curriculum (MeCuM Science, Module 6) and the Practical Year (Praktisches Jahr, PJ), Faculty of Medicine, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2590-8201
Sandra SchuhDepartment of Dermatology and Allergology, University Hospital Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1470-7619
Sarah WahlsterUniversity of Washington, Seattle, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1744-1166
Changryul Claud YiDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Pusan National University School of Medicine and the Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4633-0043

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Concerns about reproducibility, transparency, and research waste have intensified debates about trust in medical research and health-related sciences. Although Open science initiatives aim to address these challenges, their role in undergraduate medical education remains underexplored. Undergraduate medical education typically emphasizes appraisal of published evidence but pays less attention to how research is conducted, governed, and disseminated. This article proposes an international conceptual framework that positions Open science as part of professional formation in undergraduate medical education. The framework comprises three domains: epistemic transparency, ethical responsibility, and professional identity formation. Together, they describe how learners engage with knowledge production, uncertainty, and responsibility. Rather than prescribing curricular models, the framework offers adaptable principles that can be mapped onto existing structures such as competency-based programs in diverse contexts. By framing Open science as a formative orientation rather than a technical skill set, it links medical education to professional responsibility and the public role of medicine.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, UndergraduateCurriculumHumansSocial Responsibility

Identifiers

PMID42825187
PMCPMC13629533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.